W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
More perversion from the Canadian Courts:
PF
- Status
B
beckers
Guest
DISGUSTING in more than one way.
C
Crow
Guest
YIPEEE!
Canada drops to a new level of perversion! Isn’t this fun!
Canada drops to a new level of perversion! Isn’t this fun!
K
Karin
Guest
No lower than the US…“swingers Clubs” are here in the States alsoYIPEEE!
Canada drops to a new level of perversion! Isn’t this fun!
C
Crow
Guest
And do the goverment make laws to protect them yet?
K
Karin
Guest
Honestly I do not know…I really do not concern myself with it as
I am not one that “swings” but I do know folks that are into this.
from what I understand here in the States there are not Clubs per say as in Canada but they hold these get togethers in peoples homes and swing behind closed doors of a personal residence…no money is exchanged (that would be prostitution) and they are all consenting adults.
J
Julius_Vander
Guest
But the dissenting judges have something a little more to say on that:
‘A sternly worded dissent from Justices Michel Bastarache and Louis LeBel said the majority decision goes too far.
“It constitutes an unwarranted break with the most important principles of our past decisions regarding indecency,” the dissenters wrote.’
It’s in the Vancouver Province, Canada:
‘Supreme Court of Canada says OK to swingers clubs’
canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=6381dcc9-2b6b-49bb-9a22-8902b56b9fe8&k=2556
‘Writing on Labaye, McLachlin noted:
“Entry to the club and participation in the activities were voluntary. No one was forced to do anything or watch anything. No one was paid for sex.”
‘Defining indecency has always been difficult, McLachlin wrote.
“Over time, courts increasingly came to recognize that morals and taste were subjective, arbitrary and unworkable in the criminal context and that a diverse society would function only with a generous measure of tolerance for minority mores and practices.”’
And so now the burning question is:
Is it feasible to legislate morality? (btw, ‘per se’ is Latin,
and not spelled “per say”)
M
Mike_Dye
Guest
Not yet, but just wait until some rocket scientist takes it to court.
M
Mike_Dye
Guest
Why worry about what the courts say… it is a mute point anyway…when was the last time you can remember consenting adults getting in trouble for immoral behavior? I don’t worry too much about it though: remember how well that behavior worked out for the ancient Greeks and Romans…Our turn will come.
A
a_cermak
Guest
But the group sex was held in a private room behind locked doors, so I don’t see why this would be anyone’s business. So why was the owner arrested in the first place? If no money changed hands, it’s not prostitution. If it was behind locked door, it’s not public indecency. I agree with the court on this one.
And yes, there are places like this in the States. Here in IL, a Senatorial candidate in 2004 was alleged to have frequented such places.
And yes, there are places like this in the States. Here in IL, a Senatorial candidate in 2004 was alleged to have frequented such places.
R
Rosalinda
Guest
Money is changing hands; these are businesses; the motive is profit; the lure is dangerous sex. I read the acts are done in public but portable screens are provided. If this doesn’t qualify for “public indecency” it is only because our justices are continually lowering the bar of moral conduct.:whacky:
D
deb1
Guest
From a purely secular point of view there is nothing wrong with consenting adults gathering together to have sex with each other. I suppose that if you take religion out of the question then having sex with anyone or anything that you want is okay.
Because we are Christian, we understand how horrible that this is but I am afraid that it is hard to make non religious people understand how degrading such practices are for the participants.
Because we are Christian, we understand how horrible that this is but I am afraid that it is hard to make non religious people understand how degrading such practices are for the participants.
E
Edwin1961
Guest
In the homosexual community, such places are called ‘bath houses’. A place you pay to enter and it’s a bizarre series of events after that.
Back to the topic of the judges…
Aren’t we suppose to uphold God’s laws when human laws become immoral?
A
a_cermak
Guest
I would take that to mean when the human law is compelling you to do something immoral. I really don’t think anyone is suggesting lining people up and frog-marching them to group sex clubs. They’re simply saying don’t prosecute people who choose to frequent or run such places.Back to the topic of the judges…
Aren’t we suppose to uphold God’s laws when human laws become immoral?
I would never set foot in such a place, but if my neighbors frequent one, is it really any of my business?
- Status